I like the backbone of Prime Minister John Howard. I lived in Australia for a number of years and I think he is a good guy. Thanks for your input_________________http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolershttp://www.christiansforronpaul.com/
"...using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars..." RP

I will tell you that Mike is my second choice but I think a large portion of Americans especially the more liberal are sick of the "Christian" President we have and see Mike as far too Christian. How is he going to display to them that he is any different? If Christians can't even see the difference how can they? How can he show that he is not a warmonger, or is he?

If you're a Christian, you should NOT hide your light under a basket. Surely you would not advocate that? Please say no!

Warmonger? Nope.

(btw, Huckabee has come out against NAFTA, NASCo and the NAU as well. He strongly supports our Nat'l Sovereignty.)

Theodore wrote:

He was governor of Arkansas, which isn't exactly the most Republican-friendly state

You can say that again! When Huckabee was governor, there were 4 GOP State Senators (out of a total of 35) and 11 State Reps (out of 100). Arkansas had the most lopsided legislature in the nation. For Huckabee to reduce the welfare rolls by 50%, and cut taxes 93 times is truly remarkable.

Theodore wrote:

On the other hand, one of the movies showed that he's in favor of using tax dollars to fund education for the children of illegal immigrants.

I will say, he's no Tom Tancredo on immigration, but he's firmly against amnesty. That bill in AR would allow illegal's children who had applied for citizenship to receive scholarships. Immigration is his weakest area, in my opinion; but he's no McCain or Clinton._________________Mike Huckabee: the Homeschooler's BEST Choice!

Deporting every illegal immigrant in the US isn't going to happen. My view is that immigrants who've been here more than x years, who are willing to learn English and pay back taxes, and who haven't committed any crimes, should be given citizenship. Given, they should be barred from taking advantage of welfare, Medicare, Social Security, or any other handout program for a certain period of time - we don't need leeches - and anyone who isn't given amnesty should be immediately deported. If that costs a lot of money, too bad. I'm also in favor of shifting the numbers of people accepted from various nations based on the track record of people previously accepted.

Practically speaking, America can use people who are willing to contribute, and leaving illegals in limbo because you aren't willing to either deport or naturalize them isn't a workable solution. Either make them citizens or ship them out.

I too like John Howard - I wish someone could stand up here and say things like that here without getting trashed. Too many Americans have no pride in being American._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

I would not want to hide my light but let it shine by my good works. Then they can know i am a Christian because I love my brother. You can not help the title but it makes it much harder to convince people.

I wish to quit the attack mode. Mike is probably a good guy. I just can not get interested in him. Also it is highly unlikely that he will win with so many people like Pat Robertson supporting Giuliani. But God is the one who puts a man in or out I believe so it is possible.

I just like Ron Paul and he has a better chance of winning than Mike in my personal opinion.

I have watched a good portion of the movies on this page. I have learned so much about this country and politics. http://whoisronpaul.name/

I do not think it is beneficial to attack because if Mike and Ron Paul both do well they will bring the others down who I absolutely do not want to see get elected._________________http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolershttp://www.christiansforronpaul.com/
"...using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars..." RP

I just wish I could predict the future and see how each will turn out if they become president. As far as choosing one to vote for, it's dang difficult - one candidate might be best on one issue, then another's better somewhere else, and you pretty much have to assign a score for each issue and then tot them all up to find out who's the winner. Even that might not be enough when you factor in the chances of your pick actually winning. Voting for someone who's never in a million years going to win just means that you increased the chances of one of the bad guys winning.

I'd much prefer a voting system where you can vote for all candidates you find acceptable, then the one with the most votes wins. It would eliminate the chances of winning problem._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of "just war." This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible. I'm sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Especially this part:
The facts: The omnibus income tax cut bill of 1997 was proposed by Gov. Jim Guy Tucker in the spring of 1996. It had multiple (7) features, all aimed at relief for middle-class families or the elderly. He asked interim legislative committees to expand on his plan. Tucker then resigned before the legislature convened after his conviction on Whitewater-related charges, and Huckabee took office.

At the legislative session that followed, the Democratic caucus of the House (88 of the 100 members) made the Tucker tax cuts its chief program. The bill was introduced with 83 sponsors (all Democrats) and all Democrats voted for it. It was unopposed. Huckabee’s tax cut was to give each taxpayer a check for $25 each fall, saying it would help offset the burden of sales taxes on groceries (the repeal of which he repeatedly opposed). The legislature rejected Huckabee’s plan and passed the Tucker bill. Huckabee signed it into law.

If true, this means I definitely won't be voting for Huckabee. That basically leaves McCain, Ron Paul, and Romney. I feel more comfortable voting for Romney than McCain, and I think Romney has a better chance of winning the primary than Ron Paul, but this will require more thought._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

Romney seems to have the proper moral stance on most things, he and Ron Paul would both make good presidents. At this point I've eliminated all other candidates for a variety of reasons, it all boils down to which of those two I think has a better chance of winning the primary / election.

HSLDA supports Huckabee because he's doing well in the polls and supported homeschooler-friendly legislation, and NEA supports Huckabee because he shows a track record of supporting big government. As far as I'm concerned, the latter nixes him in my book._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

Ron Paul is right when he says the republicans won in the year 2000 on a humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing the world. This is just what Ron Paul is saying but the difference is that Ron Paul is not a band-aid man he is a doctor and he is going for surgery. This is the only way._________________http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolershttp://www.christiansforronpaul.com/
"...using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars..." RP

Hmm. We didn't go to Vietnam, or Korea, or Afghanistan, or Iraq to push our beliefs on others. At the time, all of those appeared to be an issue of national defense. In retrospect, of course, many of those may not have been necessary, but it's easy to look back and second-guess when you weren't the one who had to make the decisions.

We were about two days from winning in Vietnam when we pulled out, as the memoirs of one of the enemy generals show. We could also have won months before if half the nation wasn't busy destroying troop morale, and if the liberal parts of Congress weren't helpfully leaking all our military plans to the enemy, and if asinine rules of engagement hadn't been put into place. Going there probably wasn't a good idea, but once we went there, we should have fought to win.

The reason we haven't "won" yet in Iraq is that we simply didn't have enough soldiers over there - only about 1/10 the number of soldiers per square mile that we had in Vietnam. It's easy to see this is true by the fact that the "surge" of a few extra tens of thousands of troops has caused a massive drop in violence. It may not have been a good idea to go over there originally, but now that we're there, the object again should be to win. To win, you need peace long enough for people to get used to it and see the advantages. The current strategy seems to be working to some extent.

As far as policing the world goes, there are some areas such as the Sudan where a few soldiers would make a big difference. We shouldn't be sending large chunks of our military all over the place to promote our point of view, but I don't see why a few Special Forces teams can't be sent here and there to prevent outright murder. If x group is killing y group that's peaceful and friendly to us, eliminate x group's leadership. It's more fair than having a war and killing most of x groups soldiers, or letting y group get slaughtered because nobody cares.

In a perfect world, of course, nations would all band together to force nasty people / governments to be nice without war, but many of the nations of the world prefer chaos, or worse yet, are totally committed to killing anyone not of their religious point of view, or worst of all, just want to take over the world. We could definitely be a lot less aggressive, but I wouldn't go all the way to saying we should be isolationist either. We should just never start wars that we aren't 100% committed to finishing, or wars that are likely to kill a lot more (good) people than they save.

Theodore, regarding your comment of HSLDA supporting Huckabee because he's doing well in the polls:

I received an email from HSLDA many months ago - I believe it was either Feb. or March 2007 - announcing their support for this candidate. I had never even heard of him at the time. He was way down the list when HSLDA took a stand to support him...FYI